[This is the web site of the reconstituted Socialist Party of Great Britain who were expelled from the Clapham-based Socialist Party in May 1991 for using the name âThe Socialist Party of Great Britainâ in our propaganda as required by Clause 6 of The Object and Declaration of Principles formulated in 1904 to which we agree. We reconstituted ourselves as The Socialist Party of Great Britain in June 1991. Any money given to us for literature or support is in recognition that we are not the Clapham based Socialist Party at 52 Clapham High Street and any mistakes will be rectified.]

Socialist Studies No.52, Summer 2004

The
Struggle For Socialism 1904-2004

Socialists
have much to consider as we mark the centenary of the founding of
The SPGB. We celebrate it since we recognise
the immense value of the work done by those who established this Party
and set out its DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES. We know how well these
founding Principles have served the party over the last hundred years
in defining the party's way of thinking and as the basis of our policy.
But we are also aware that to date our progress towards achieving
our aim, Socialism, has been very slow. To some extent, it is amazing
that the party has even survived so long, let alone that we can point,
with justifiable pride, at the party's achievements.

What
achievements? - we are asked. Our opponents would say these do
not amount to much. How many MPs do we have? How many members?
So what is this talk of achievements if not merely whistling in the
dark to keep our spirits up?

The best answer is for us to take a look
at the party's historical record. After all, principles, however logical,
are no use unless they hold up and are valid when applied to changing
circumstances.

An
early Greek materialist philosopher used the analogy of a river: although
each moment you look at it you see constant changes, yet still it
is the same river. That in the last hundred years there have been
significant changes in capitalism is undeniable. But we would argue
that it is equally true that the basis of the capitalist system, the
exploitation of the working class through the wages system, remains
essentially unchanged. If so, it follows that the party's Principles
are as valid now as they were a hundred years ago.

First,
by setting out as the Party's sole OBJECT the establishment of Socialism/Communism,
and stating clearly what this meant, the Party founders rejected any
programmes of 'immediate demands' or 'palliatives'. That meant a break
with the parties of the Second International, such as in Britain the
Social Democratic Federation and the Independent Labour Party. All
those parties, while claiming to be Socialist (or Social Democrat)
parties, in fact put forward a variety of reform proposals to woo
the voters. Rejection of reformism was, and is, central to The SPGB
position.

To
take this line took courage: it was a leap into the unknown. This
was the only party in Britain that stood for Socialism and only
for Socialism. It still is.

The
DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES makes the case for Socialism as being in
the interest of the working class, i.e. on the basis of the class
struggle - the "antagonism of interests" between
the parasitic capitalist class and the working class "by whose
labour alone all wealth is produced". This conflict of "interests"
can only be ended by "working class emancipation"
and the "establishment of common ownership of the means of
production and distribution with democratic control by and in the
interest of the whole community".

In
the last 100 years, generations of workers have joined The SPGB, recognising
how as members of the working class they are exploited under the wages
system. Class-consciousness is the basis of The SPGB case
for Socialism, just as it is of the political organisation needed
to establish Socialism. A class-conscious working class is
an essential pre-condition for Socialism.

The
clarity of the Party's theoretical argument meant that, after the
Bolshevik Revolution, The SPGB opposed the claim that Socialism was
established in Russia, where a system was being established that,
later, even Lenin described as "state capitalism".
Soon after the Russian Revolution (October 1917), The SPGB argued
that whatever was being achieved in Russia simply could not be Socialism:
was peasant Russia, with its small, urban proletariat, its economy
in ruins, its cities' populations starving, ready and able to establish
Socialism?

Unless
a mental revolution such as the world has never seen before has taken
place, or an economic change has occurred immensely more rapidly than
history has ever recorded, the answer is "No!"... There
is no ground whatever for supposing that they [the peasants] are ready
or willing to accept social ownership of the land, along with the
other means of production. SOCIALIST STANDARD, August 1918, reprinted
in 1948 pamphlet, RUSSIA SINCE 1917.

Likewise
when the Labour Party put forward a policy for nationalisation, calling
it Socialism, The SPGB opposed that as just another scheme for trying
to solve the problems of capitalism:

The
thing [nationalisation] is a transparent fraud. Making nationalisation
pay means making it pay the millions that the Government is handing
out to the former owners. The exploiters >are
still living on the backs of the workers, with the difference that
the Labour Party, as the Government, undertakes official responsibility
for maintaining the exploitation
(1945 article, quoted in our 1997 pamphlet, NEW LABOUR - A PARTY OF
CAPITALISM).

Another
mistaken Labour policy, which was also claimed to be Socialist, was
the so-called Welfare State - the NHS and National Insurance. The SPGB analysis of any state 'welfare' policies was rooted
in our understanding of exploitation through the wages system. When
the wartime government increased the amount of the worker's weekly
national health and pensions insurance deduction by one penny, the
Party argued that this made no real difference:

National
Insurance
The Wonderful World of Pensions for All

Relatively,
the position is the same as before - the worker has a bob or two stopped
out of his wages, the old age pensioner can still manage to escape
the workhouse by sponging on his poor relatives or, if there are none,
he can in most cases get a supplementary allowance from the public
assistance committee, and the employers think they have done a nice
little bit of business by making the worker bees save up for their
old age, so saving the expense of keeping them in institutions. We
hate to disillusion our capitalist masters, but would it make so much
difference if the whole vast governmental apparatus of deductions,
accounting and stamping were scrapped and the "pension"
paid out of general taxation? Actually, it would make but little difference,
for the worker's wages always tend to equal the cost of living - after
all, you must feed the beast to get the work out of him - so that
deductions from wages tend to be counterbalanced by increases in wages,
and in any case, it is the capitalist class themselves who fork out
the bulk of the taxation.
SOCIALIST STANDARD, February 1942

As
for the Beveridge Report and proposals for Family Allowances, later
followed by Child Benefits, Child Credits and various complicated,
means-tested, schemes to supplement low wages, the Party was unimpressed:

The
great problem stays even if every dot and comma of the report is put
into operation. That problem is the outstanding social problem of
the age - the poverty of the working-class, and not just the additional
burdens borne in times of unemployment, old age and sickness, burdens
which incidentally Beveridge does little to lift. The poverty of the
working-class is due to the private ownership by the capitalists of
the means of production and distribution. Socialism alone can end
that poverty....The
Beveridge proposals will not solve the poverty problems of the working-class.
They will level the workers' position as a whole, reducing the more
favourably placed to a lower level, and putting the worst placed on
a less evil level. This is not a "new world" of hope, but
a re-distribution of misery.
BEVERIDGE RE-ORGANISES POVERTY, The SPGB pamphlet, 1943

Such
arguments remain valid now, decades later. Problems of working class
life under capitalism are impossible to reform. Generations of reformers
have tried unsuccessfully to square the circle, to find ways to support
the unemployed, the sick, the disabled, the old, and other 'redundant'
members of the working class, to have capitalism without the consequences
of capitalism.

THE
POOR LAW REPORT (1834) declared as the key principle that "[the
pauper's] situation on the whole shall not be made really or apparently
so eligible as the situation of the labourer of the lowest class".
The SPGB arguments on this subject are ones that echo Marx:

Pauperism
is the hospital of the active labour-army and the dead weight of the
industrial reserve-army ... along with the surplus population, pauperism
forms a condition of capitalist production and of the capitalist development
of wealth. It enters into the faux frais of capitalist production;
but capital knows how to throw these, for the most part, from its
own shoulders on to those of the working-class and the lower middle-class.
CAPITAL, Vol. I, chapter 25:4

Again
and again, the class struggle was and is at the heart of the question.
Since the class struggle is worldwide, as is the capitalist system,
it follows that working class emancipation will mean the emancipation
of all mankind "without distinction of race or sex".
When war came in 1914, the party stated its internationalist position
uncompromisingly, consistently and courageously. The war was fought
over capitalist interests such as markets and trade routes, not over
working class interests. The first wartime editorial emphasised the
class war:

The
question for the working class, then, is not that of British or German
victory, since either event will leave them wage-slaves living upon
wages. Under German rule those wages cannot be reduced much lower
than under British, for every British working man knows that the masters
who are shouting so loudly for us to go and die in defence of our
shackles and their shekels, have left no stone unturned to force wages
to the lowest possible limits.
The question, then, before the workers, is the abolition of the whole
social system of which war and unemployment are integral parts, and
the establishment of society upon the basis of common ownership of
the means of production - the establishment, that is, of Socialism.
SOCIALIST STANDARD, September 1914

The
First World War put a stop to the Party's outdoor meetings, and many
Party members disappeared - some conscripted, some jailed, others
sacked or arrested, or both. To avoid conscription, some members went
abroad and became active in Socialist propaganda in America, Canada,
Australia, etc. In 1916 the authorities banned the Socialist Standard
from being sent abroad (its contents "might be used by the
enemy powers for their propaganda"!) and in 1917 the police
raided the party's Head Office.

In
shameful contrast, the parties of the Second International, in all
European countries, abandoned working-class internationalism. In Britain,
while most Labour, ILP and SDP politicians supported the war, only
The SPGB maintained, as a matter of policy and principle, throughout
the war, the principle of international working-class solidarity.
After the war, The SPGB MANIFESTO was republished with a new PREFACE,
placing these parties' shameful betrayal on record:

As
was to be expected, this mighty event proved a searching test for
all those who claimed to hold Socialist principles. At the very outset
[of war] the so-called International crumpled up, thus justifying
our long-standing criticism. In all the belligerent countries the
pseudo-Socialists, whom we had all along denounced as mere capitalist
cats paws, ranged themselves beside their respective war-lords, voting
war-credits, and acting as decoys to lure men of the working class
into the shambles. Everywhere organisations which had followed the
opportunist policy, trying to build themselves up on compromise and
political trading while claiming to be founded on Socialist principles,
found themselves caught in the toils when the test time came, and
the appeal was made to those passions and emotions that only Socialist
knowledge can destroy...

THE
SOCIALIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN was the only organisation in this
country that maintained the Socialist attitude on the war. Since
our inception as a party we have proclaimed the unity of interest
of the workers the world over, and the antagonism of interest between
the workers of the world and the master class thereof. The principles
which we had proclaimed and acted upon in "peace" were
sufficient to guide us in war.
MANIFESTO, Preface to Sixth Edition, 1920

The
party's attitude to capitalism's wars has stayed the same: wars are
not fought in the interest of the working class but over the business
interests of the capitalist class. The real enemy of the worker is
the capitalist on his doorstep.

As
for the 'national interest', The SPGB rejects nationalism just as
we oppose any ideology that divides the working class. The same principle
applies to every such ideology - religion, racism and nationalism.

Political
Class Struggle

The
party's PRINCIPLES are rooted in arguments put forward first by Marx
and Engels in the Communist Manifesto, and later by Marx in the key
policy documents he drafted for the International Working Men's Organisation.
First in the Communist Manifesto and later, repeatedly and emphatically
in policy statements of the First International, Marx argued that
to achieve working class emancipation required class-conscious political
organisation and action - " every class struggle is a political
struggle" (THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO).

In
1871, the London Conference of the International passed a resolution
on political action, drafted by Marx, asserting:

Considering,
that against this collective power of the propertied classes the working
class cannot act, as a class, except by constituting itself into a
political party, distinct from, and opposed to, all other parties
formed by the propertied classes...
Marx: THE FIRST INTERNATIONAL AND AFTER, Pelican, p.270

Later
in 1880, Marx drafted a brief theoretical introduction for the French
Workers Party (Parti Ouvrier), which is worth quoting here since this
too is echoed in The SPGB's DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES:

Considering,
That the emancipation of the class of producers involves all mankind,
without distinction of sex or race;
That the producers can only be free when they are in possession of
the means of production;...
That collective appropriation can only proceed from a revolutionary
action of the class of producers - the proletariat - organised in
an independent political party;
That
this collective appropriation must be striven for by all means that
are available to the proletariat, including universal suffrage, which
will thus be transformed from the instrument of fraud that it has
been up till now into an instrument of emancipation..
.( ibid., pp376-7)

Throughout
most of the 20th century, The SPGB was united in arguing its case
on the basis of its founding principles. The "emancipation
of all mankind, without distinction of race or sex" was well
ahead of its time in 1904 and increasingly relevant in periods of
racism, and when the Left later turned to the divisive politics of
race and gender.

The SPGB's insistence on the need for the Socialist Party to be one that
is independent of and opposed to all other political parties
- an insistence which was also part of Marx's thinking - this was
attacked both by those on the left who urged the Party to join forces
with those in the Labour Party who called themselves Socialists, and
by the supporters of Leninist vanguardism. To all such parties, we
pose a threat, small as we are. And so they attack us as 'sectarian'.

Only
in recent decades have we had to fight "the enemy within".
Only in recent times have we found amongst the members of this party
those who wanted to overthrow the DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES. First,
they objected to the so-called 'hostility' clause. They wanted
The SPGB to express support for such deserving causes as, say, democratic
reform movements, regardless of whether such movements were at all
interested in establishing Socialism. Some argued that the Party should
become part of a broad "anti-market, anti-state"
alliance.

Some
said that to argue the case for Socialism on such old-fashioned, Marxist
grounds as the class struggle would not appeal to the man or woman
in the street. In a period when 'direct action' was back in
fashion, a 1984 Conference resolution, with echoes of 19th century
anarchism, declared that Socialism "will entail the immediate
abolition ... of the State". This ran counter to the Party's
DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES.

Those
of us who objected were sneered at as mere "D of P-ers",
and finally forced out of the party. Those who engineered these expulsions
had decided their Party should no longer be called The SPGB but instead confuse the workers by calling itself
'the Socialist Party' (a name which to most workers means either the
Labour Party or some Trotskyist splinter group). They were confident
that their Party would be able to grow rapidly, once freed from the
restraints imposed by adherence to The SPGB's unifying principles.
Since then, however, their organisation has shrunk to a fraction of
its past strength. Few branches of that Party exist now, even on paper,
even in London. At Conferences they are lucky to find a dozen or so
members present. Confusion reigns among their associated organisations
abroad and overseas contacts.

Meanwhile,
the reconstituted The SPGB is arguing the
case for Socialism on the basis of The SPGB's founding DECLARATION
OF PRINCIPLES. This we have been doing for over a decade now, vigorously,
consistently, and without compromise on the central questions: the
class struggle and the need to organise as an independent political
party, opposed to all other political parties and working only for
Socialism.

A
hundred years on, and the case for Socialism remains. The SPGB as
ever argues for Socialism and only for Socialism - the whole bakery,
not just a larger slice of the loaf.

The
various historic milestones on the way, such as wars, the General
Strike, economic crises and the supposed inevitable 'collapse'
of capitalism, the Russian revolution and the later supposed 'collapse
of communism', among others - these have been marked by many betrayals
of the Socialist cause and working-class internationalism by parties
claiming to be socialist but in fact riddled and rotten with reformist
opportunism. They have also tested the ability of Socialists to apply
our principles and our Marxist analysis to these developments in capitalism.

Our
historic record is one to be proud of. Only The SPGB has steered a true course, not deviating
from our sole purpose - Socialism. That, we claim, is a proud achievement,
something to celebrate and to honour. We assert that the founding
members of this party built on sound foundations, and we salute them
for their clear-sightedness, courage and dedication: we, who walk
in their footsteps and who share their vision and their uncompromising
principles.

The SPGB will not barter its independence
for promises of reform ...For the party of the working class,
one course alone is open, and that involves unceasing hostility
to all parties, no matter what their plea, that lend their aid
to the administration of the existing social order and thus
contribute, consciously or otherwise, to its maintenance. Our
object is its overthrow.
QUESTIONS OF THE DAY, 1932 edition, p18.

Propaganda,
Politics and Revolution

Has
Capitalism Triumphed?

Never
has the capitalist class felt so secure. Never has their wealth and
privilege been so great. According to the Institute for Policy Studies,
497 billionaires now have a combined wealth of $1.54 trillion greater
than that owned by half the world's population.

The
capitalist class basks in the sun while their tame academics spread
the lie that capitalism has globally triumphed. LSE Professor, Patrick
Minford proclaims in his book "MARKETS NOT STAKES - THE TRIUMPH
OF CAPITALISM AND THE STAKEHOLDER FALLACY (1998) that the American
eagle has spread its free market wings over the six continents of
the world. Capitalist triumphalism is for Minford American triumphalism.
"USA!: USA!: USA!" bellows the professor throughout
the book's 257 pages. He has come a long way since his Maoist student
days of the 1960's.

The
propaganda of 21st century capitalism is the propaganda of triumphalism.
It is also the propaganda of a lie. The truth is altogether different.
Socialism has not failed because Socialism has never existed. The
Socialist revolution has still to take place. There has never been
a test of a Socialist majority taking conscious and political action.
Nowhere has there ever been common ownership and democratic control
of the means of production and distribution by all of society.

Adair
Turner, Vice Chairman of Merrill Lynch Europe (total client assets:
approximately US$1.4 trillion) and a director of a number of media
and Internet companies, shares this triumphalism. He, too, propagates
the lie that Socialism has been seen off by what he calls "the
dynamism of the free market".

Mr
Turner is not only a very wealthy capitalist in his own right but
he is also a visiting professor at the London School of Economics;
from 1995 to 1999 he was Director-General of the Confederation of
British Industry and before that a director of McKinsey and Company.
He is also the Chairman of the Low Pay Commission and Chairman of
the Pension Commission.

The door of Number Ten is open to him. He wines and dines there. He
no doubt gets a card from Tony at Christmas. He is on the Prime Minister's
panel of independent strategic advisors.

Mr
Turner is also a polemicist for the capitalist class. He propagates
the interests of the capitalist class. He deeply believes in capitalism.
And not without reason. As a capitalist he lives off the unearned
income of profit. He lives off the exploitation of the working class
who actually produce all the social wealth. The working class are
the wealth creators, not the capitalist class.

Turner
has recently written a book in which he praises capitalism. As a side
swipe at Marx he has called his book "JUST CAPITAL". The
title is a play on words. Not only is Mr Turner implying that capitalism
is "just, equitable and fair" to both the capitalist
class and the working class. He is also implying that there is just
Capital. All practical alternatives have been seen off. To slightly
change a remark once made by the rock musician Frank Zappa, "there
is more stupidity in economics than there is hydrogen in the universe".

Hired
Prize-Fighters

You
can imagine Mr Turner sitting each day on a mat in his plush London
office somewhere in the City arms folded chanting out "there
is no alternative". This is Mr Turner's political mantra.
With all his faith in capitalism, Mr Turner can never see capitalism
as it really is. He is no disinterested scientist but an apologist
for the profit system of class exploitation. Capitalist economics
long ago gave up being a science. It is now a set of ruling class
ideas and beliefs.

In
place of disinterested inquirers, there were hired prize-fighters;
in place of genuine scientific research, the bad conscience and the
evil intent of apologetic.
Marx, CAPITAL, Preface to 2nd Edition, p.19

JUST
CAPITAL contains the usual puff from Turner's devotees. Will Hutton
praises it to the hilt, so do Professor Ralf Dahrendorf and Jonathan
Porritt. Workers should be wary of radicals from universities who
wish to promote themselves as theoretical leaders. Hutton is your
typical GUARDIAN contributor, a Utopian dreamer who thinks you can
have capitalism without the effects of capitalism. And Professor Dahrendorf
has spent an academic lifetime trying and failing to produce a bourgeois
theory of class to match Marx's own scientific propositions about
class, class interest and class struggle.

We
do not intend to spend more time on Mr Turner or his book than he
deserves. It is pretty poor capitalist propaganda, bearing all the
hallmarks of an apologetic, shallow economics tract. The book peddles
the vulgar belief that you can have a crisis-free market economy with
perfect information, ever-increasing choice for all, harmony of interests
between capital and labour, and world peace through the operation
of commodity production and exchange for profit.

In
the real world Marx showed that capitalism is anarchic and crisis-ridden
with irresolvable contradictions. Class conflict is built into the
very system itself as capitalist production for profit prevents the
needs of the world's population from being met. In the real world,
away from economic seminars, billions are unemployed. War and conflict
is everywhere except in economic text books. Capitalism can only ever
be unpleasant, exploitative, violent and destructive.

Vietnam:
from capitalism to capitalism

However
we will start with Mr Turner's belief that capitalism is everywhere
triumphant. He states right at the beginning of the book:

In
November 2000 Bill Clinton visited Vietnam, the country which twenty-five
years earlier had expelled America's military might, and which had
set out to build a communist society. He bought a message of reconciliation
but also a message of confidence in the capitalist model, urging
the Vietnamese to embrace the "force of nature" which
globalization and the market economy appear to represent. He was
well received and not surprisingly. For Vietnam is already integrating
into the global market economy , its exports competing in developed
country markets on the basis of low labour cost, its factories producing
goods for multinational firms, its domestic economy increasingly
organized on market principles.
In that conversion to the market economy it is following in the
footsteps of its one-time communist models - Russia and China. The
triumph of the global free market appears complete (p7).

The
Vietnamese ruling class did not need any lecture from Mr Clinton or
Mr Turner about embracing capitalism. Vietnam had already embraced
capitalism, first through a primitive and crude nationalisation programme,
and now, increasingly, a capitalism found elsewhere in the world.

The
first primitive form, state capitalism, was supported by the capitalist
Left in the 1960's and 1970's. Remember the likes of Tariq Ali, linking
arms with other Trotskyists at London demonstrations, childishly shouting
out "Ho- Ho- Ho Chi Min" . Where are the defenders
of state capitalism now?

Now
another form of capitalism in Vietnam is supported by the fundamentalist
free-market Right whose equally inane chant is "Free Trade".

As
regards the interests of the working class, both forms of capitalism
are merely two sides of the same exploitative coin. Wherever there
is wage labour, there is exploitation. Wherever the capital-labour
relationship exists, there is the exercise of class power and class
privilege. This is borne out by developments in Vietnam.

What
is the reality of capitalism in Vietnam? Here is the reality. First,
the ASIA TIMES (June 2000) with an article stating that in Vietnam
there are:

· Primitive conditions of employment - high levels of accidents
and deaths at work
· A high rate of unemployment at 7.4%
· Large-scale unplanned migration to the cities
· No free trade unions
· No free political party advocating Socialism

The CAMPAIGN FOR EDUCATION wrote, in their 2000 report, that in Vietnam:

· 12,675 children under 15 years are working in dangerous
and unhealthy conditions usually for multinational corporations.
· 22,000 children working in hazardous industries, many supplying
commodities for the world market.

The ANTI LABOUR SWEAT SHOP LEAGUE (January 2004) stated that:

Any
organization put together by the workers will be immediately destroyed
at once. These people are basically slaves, they are scared into
staying, they are paid very, very low wages or nothing at all, and
are denied basic benefits and worker's rights
Some factory management rape, abuse, and assault the workers putting
a sense of fear in them so they don't leave and stay despite the
abuse.

So
there we have it, capitalist propaganda and the reality: the myth
of the "best of all possible worlds" on the one hand,
and the contrasting reality of profit, exploitation and human misery.
Mr Turner is, of course, not interested in the repression of free
trade unions, the low pay, exploitation, the use of child labour,
the sweat shops, and political dictatorship. The last thing he would
want to see is a genuine Socialist Party in Vietnam advocating the
abolition of the wages system. He only sees potential markets and
cheap labour to exploit.

We
can also look at capitalism in Vietnam from a Marxist perspective.
Marx showed that sellers of commodities can never know whether they
will find a buyer in the market. If the time period is too great,
an economic crisis will occur with bankruptcy and unemployment the
consequence. This is the anarchy of capitalist production.
Marx considered trade crises an expression of all the contradictions
of capitalism:

All contradictions of bourgeois production collectively come into
eruption in the general crises on the world market.
THEORIES OF SURPLUS VALUE, Volume II, Part II, p.318

At
present there is an economic crisis in coffee production (INDEPENDENT
4 April 2004). The price of coffee has collapsed around the world.
Ironically, during the early 1990's, Vietnam was encouraged by the
World Bank to grow coffee. A huge increase in production of Vietnamese
coffee took place. In the 1980's, Vietnam was 42nd ranked commodity
producer in coffee on the world market (so much for the lie that Vietnam
was Socialist/Communist). But by 2001, Vietnam produced about 15 million
bags making it the second largest producer of coffee worldwide. Vietnam's
coffee producers glutted the market. There are more sellers of coffee
than buyers. The Vietnamese coffee farmers are now having to sell
their coffee at only 60% of the cost of production and repay loans
taken out in the misguided belief that there would be a market for
their coffee.

Anthony
Wild, a commentator on coffee production recently wrote:

Vietnamese
coffee production, having boomed, is now falling rapidly as it is
realised that the promised riches are chimerical. The larger cost,
to the fragile highland environment, to its beleaguered wildlife,
to the displaced indigenes, and to the migrant lowlanders left stranded
without an income and deep in debt is incalculable.
COFFEE: A DARK HISTORY, Fourth Estate 2004

Living
in the Real World

Whose
analysis of capitalism is more penetrating, scientific and correct
- Marx's or Turner's? Turner believes that the capitalist market is
perfect. Marx showed it to be anarchic, unpredictable and destructive.
Who describes the real world, Turner or Marx? Did Turner anticipate
the current crisis in the coffee market with the resultant bankruptcy
and unemployment in Vietnam? Marx showed that capitalism passes from
one economic crisis to another. Marx had a scientific understanding
of and insight into capitalist production for profit and its laws
that has never been surpassed. Certainly not by such as Mr Turner.

Mr Turner, like all economists, is so much the slave to the economic
system that he shuts his eyes to facts for fear of seeing them. In
the face of all the poverty, all the exploitation and all the social
alienation, he coolly denies there is anything wrong with commodity
production and exchange for profit. The distress of dying children
for want of food does not reach his blunted senses - the cry of hunger
has no voice for him. And were there to be civil war and the fabric
of capitalist society torn to pieces, he would still keep repeating
"All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds".

Then
there is the question of capital. Like all economists, Turner makes
the error of depicting capital as a "thing". Capital,
is in fact, a social relationship - a class relationship between workers,
capitalists and the means of production.

In a famous passage in WAGE LABOUR AND CAPITAL, Marx remarked:

A Negro is a Negro. He only becomes a slave in certain relations.
A cotton-spinning jenny is a machine for spinning cotton. It becomes
capital only in certain relations. Torn from these relationships it
is no more capital than gold is money or sugar the price of sugar...
Capital is a social relation of production. It is a bourgeois
production relation, a production relation of bourgeois society.

Abolish the social relationship between capital and labour, abolish
the wages system, and human labour-power ceases to be a commodity,
ceases to be variable capital. The same applies to raw resources and
other means of production. The means of production are only "constant
capital" under capitalism. Abolish capitalism and establish
socialism, and the means of production will be owned in common. Turner's
propaganda is wrong in another important respect. Russia and China
have always traded on the world market. They have always been part
of world capitalism. State capitalist countries have not been immune
from capitalism's laws and contradictions.

The
labour theory of value holds good wherever wage labour is exploited
in the productive process.

And
it is a misnomer to refer to China and Russia as "Communist".
You can label a bottle of whitewash "milk". But when
you come to drink it, the content still tastes of whitewash. This
applies as much to Vietnamese capitalism masquerading as "Communism"
as it does to books published with the "Triumph of Capitalism"
printed on their cover.

The
Legacy of War

An
estimated 5,700 tons, or 12 million gallons of Agent Orange
were sprayed on South Vietnam during the war, destroying as
much as 14 per cent of the forest cover and 50% of the mangrove
swamp that had previously been a valuable source of lumber.
Over 4.5 million acres of vegetation were wiped out, with devastating
results for the wildlife and the ecology, let alone any unfortunate
Vietnamese who found themselves in the flight path of the sprayers.
Inevitably farms and smallholdings were also sprayed, causing
widespread poverty and starvation. It was 10 years before crops
could again be grown on affected land.. The health costs are
still not fully understood, but about 400,000 deaths and serious
cases of illness, and a further 500,000 birth defects in Vietnam
have been attributed to the agent.
THE
INDEPENDENT , 4 April 2004.

Predicting
The Unpredictable and Irrational

Some
inventors chase the dream of a perpetual motion machine. Others
seek a formula for predicting the ups and downs of stock markets
and foreign exchange markets. Contrary to the simple belief
of the Adam Smith school of economics, "as the effectiveness
of one trader's actions depends on what all the others do, rationality
is an unreliable guide". So devising a successful prediction
model means simply picking up on "patterns in past price
movements and [using] them to predict the future".
Easier said than done - given that these markets are often afflicted
by "mass panics, waves of euphoria, and other collective
movements" (NEW SCIENTIST, 10 April 2004). Remember
the hedge fund, LTCM, based on a mathematical model supposed
to ensure profits? An utter disaster. Punters would have been
better sticking to the horses or the Lottery!

His
Master's Voice

Socialists
are often asked why we spend so much time on the question of inflation.
We would spend less time on this particularly dull subject were it
not for politicians, economists and journalists blaming workers for
inflation.

A
recent example of the fallacious assertion that workers cause inflation
can be seen in the smug and witless column by Anthony Hilton (EVENING
STANDARD, 8.07.02). He tried to draw a parallel with the 1970's when
public sector unions were on strike, there was rising inflation, and
there was a trade depression with high unemployment.

In
his column, "Public sector pay and the spectre of stagflation",
Hilton based his case on statistics from the investment bank Schroeder
Salomon Smith Barney, whose understanding of inflation was equal to
Hilton's own economic illiteracy.

Hilton
claimed that 'inflation' was evident in the private sector,
concluding that "Historically, wage rises in the public sector
filter out into the private sector and lead to a parallel surge of
inflation there".

They
do no such thing. Inflation is not caused by workers struggling for
higher wage rises. Even some economists admit this. In his article
"WAGES, INFLATION AND RESERVE BANK MYTHS, the economist Gerard
Jackson stated that "there is absolutely no support in history
for the view that inflation can ever be the function of wage growth"
(BROOKES NEWS, 23 April 2003). Inflation is caused by governments,
year after year, printing and putting into circulation hundreds of
millions of pounds of excess paper money.

Other
things being equal, wherever and whenever currency has been issued
in excess, the price level has risen, and wherever and whenever currency
has been restricted, prices have stabilised or fallen. In the period
1920-22, the printing presses of the German central bank were busy
day and night pouring out notes, and prices were rocketing upwards.
In Britain in the same three-year period the Government had decided
to halt inflation, the note issue was restricted, and prices were
falling fast.
Inflation is not the only factor affecting prices. In Britain, in
the 90 years before 1914 when there was no inflation (the price level
in 1914 being below that of 1820), prices rose moderately in trade
booms and fell again in periods of bad trade, a process also explained
by Marx.

The
reason there was no inflation in Britain, in the century before 1914,
was that through the operation of the gold standard the note issue
was controlled. Beyond a fixed low limit the Bank of England could
not issue additional notes without adding an equivalent amount of
gold to the reserve in its vaults. Also the notes, by law, were freely
convertible into a fixed amount of gold - one pound being fixed at
about a quarter of an ounce of gold. Gold coins and Bank of England
notes both circulated but, because of legally enforced convertibility,
a Bank of England note was "as good as gold", and
the combined circulation of notes and gold coins was proportionate
to the total amount of gold in the reserves.

Marx
showed why, if the total amount of gold is replaced by inconvertible
paper money, and if the amount of that paper money is then issued
in excess, prices are pushed up accordingly:

If
the quantity of paper money issued is, for instance, double what it
ought to be, then in actual fact one pound has become the money name
of about one-eighth of an ounce of gold instead of about one quarter
of an ounce The values previously expressed by the price £1
will now be expressed by the price £2.
CAPITAL, Vol. 1 Allen & Unwin Edition, p108

Governments
since 1938 have followed a policy of continually increasing the amount
of currency in circulation, from under £500 million in 1938
to over £39,000 million in January 2004 (Bank of England:
Monetary & Financial Statistics March 2004). In 1977 the note
issue was £7,000 million, an increase at the time far beyond
any increase that would have been necessary because of expansion of
total production and trade. In 1976 and 1977, when the government
claimed that its 'wages and incomes policy' would curb inflation,
the flood of additional paper money went on without interruption.

The
man, more than any other, who was responsible for abandoning the nineteenth-century
policy of controlling the amount of paper money was J M Keynes, who
declared that it was no longer necessary "to watch and control
the creation of currency".

So
for 40 years the major British political parties and the trade unions
were misled by the Keynesian policy of inflation into believing that
capitalism could be rid of unemployment and trade depressions. The
simultaneous existence of both inflation and an economic depression
in the late 1970's destroyed Keynesian economic credibility.

'Wage
inflation' is an economic myth. When inflation increases through
government policy, workers are compelled to struggle for higher wages
otherwise their real incomes would fall as they did under the Callaghan
government of the 1970's.

What
of those economists and journalists who peddle the lie that workers
cause inflation? Most have been uncritically taught this economic
nonsense when they were students and know no better. It is economic
orthodoxy in text books. Marx's work on the subject is a closed book
to them.

We
waited a year to look again at Mr Hilton's prediction. He was hopelessly
wrong. The rate of inflation did not increase as he claimed it would.
In fact inflation stayed about the same at under 2% (NATIONAL STATISTICS;
Consumer Price Index, January 2002 to July 2003). His piece
of journalism was aimed squarely at attacking the working class. That
is what he is paid for. Journalists like Mr Hilton are bought men
and women. Marx called them "prize-fighters". They
produce and reproduce ruling class ideas for a living. The phrase
intellectual prostitution comes to mind.

Socialists
are bought by no one. We stand on our own two feet and tell the truth.
Capitalism, whether with inflation, a stable currency or deflation,
can never be made to work in the interests of the working class. However,
when capitalism goes wrong, as it invariably does, or when workers
try to struggle for increases in pay, capitalist politicians will
waste no time in either blaming workers or attempting to split the
working class by pitting one group of workers against another.

"Wages are, above all, also determined by their relation
to the gain, to the profit of the capitalist." If money
wages rise less than prices do, "the share of capital relative
to the share of labour has risen. The division of social wealth
between capital and labour has become still more unequal. With
the same capital, the capitalist commands a greater quantity
of labour." Marx, WAGE LABOUR AND CAPITAL

The
Clapham Party's Cover-Up

It
is now over a year since the Clapham-based Socialist Party were officially
informed that the World Socialist Party (India) had decided that they
would recognise The SPGB and sever links with the Clapham Party. The
WSP (I) made their decision after lengthy consideration at their Conference
(21-23 February 2003) and notified the Clapham party shortly after.
Months later, the WSP (I) were surprised to find their party's details
were still listed in the Clapham party's journal, the Socialist Standard,
and on Internet websites controlled by the Clapham party. In May 2003
they protested to the Clapham party:

The
Ninth Annual Conference (February 21 - 23, 2003) of the World Socialist
Party (India) has severed the Party's companionship with the Socialist
Party (Clapham) by withdrawing its misplaced recognition of them,
while recognizing The SPGB, 71 Ashbourne
Court, Woodside Park Road, London N12 8SB as the genuine The SPGB. Thus,
the WSP (India) is no longer a Companion Party of the so-called
World Socialist Movement. By now, therefore, its name should have
been deleted from both the WSM listings in the Socialist Standard
and the Website. But it is yet to be done. Well, it should not linger
over [ this] any longer.

The
Clapham Party's General Secretary replied (24 June 2003):

Subject:
Re: To delete WSP (INDIA) from the WSM listings: On the matter of
your email below, you are correct - the contact details of your organisation
will not appear in the next issue of the Socialist Standard (July
2003), and when the comrade who helps maintain the website is back
from holiday at the end of this month I will contact him to request
that your organisation's details are removed as an affiliate of the
WSM.

In
April a 15-page circular emanating from the E-mail address of the
World Socialist Party (India) was sent to various people including
ourselves. It contained various allegations against The SPGB and other parties of the World Socialist Movement,
all based on the conspiracy theory that with end of the post-war boom
in the early 1970s and the revolutionary possibilities this supposedly
opened up, pro-capitalist elements had been infiltrated into The SPGB
with the aim of diverting the working-class, particularly in the non-European
World, from learning about real socialism.

The content and tone of the circular revealed that those who issued
it did not have the same conception of internal party democracy as
the other parties of the World Socialist Movement.

The SPGB Executive Committee sent a detailed and reasoned reply at
the beginning of May, refuting the allegations and asking for them
to be substantiated or withdrawn and for our reply to be put before
the membership of the WSP (India). (For the full texts of the circular
and our reply see, in particular, messages 2335 and 2441 at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/spintcml.)
No reply was received, and those responsible for the circular indicated
through third-parties that none would be forthcoming. In these circumstances,
at its meeting in September, the EC concluded that the people using
the name and address of the WSP (India) had put themselves outside
the WSM and called upon socialists in India, including in particular
expelled members of the WSP (India), to reorganize themselves on a
sound, democratic basis.

But
why did they wait from May to September to take the WSP(I)'s details
from the listing in their journal?

Their
claim that they had not received a reply from the WSP(I) has to be
set alongside the fact that many of their members flatly refused to
enter into correspondence with the WSP(I), to answer the WSP(I)'s
Critique, and, abusively, even demanded not to hear from them
again. The brush-off is Clapham's usual way of dealing with those
who refuse to support them. Clapham's practice goes counter to The SPGB's openness to debate. You cannot
convince your opponents that you have a strong case by hiding your
head in the sand and hoping they will fade away. That is the behaviour
of those who know their case is weak.

The
Clapham party's other method is to try to discredit opponents by smear
tactics, an old Leftwing ploy. They like to claim the moral high ground,
asserting that they, and they alone, are truly democratic.

In
a recent statement, the WSP (India) commented:

As
things stand, their so-called 'detailed and reasoned reply' had from
the start been well dealt with, and sufficiently evidenced, in the
CRITIQUE and subsequent replies to the many subterfuges from their
followers. Theirs were mere face saving operations to tactfully avoid
the WSP (India)'s exposure of their monstrous distortions, lies and
slanders ...

Already, on 12 February 2003, the WSP (India)'s EC meeting minutes
had pointed out the Clapham SP's autocratic tactics: 'the WSM listings
on the Socialist Standard show unilateral changes after October last,
and these do not tally with those on the Socialist Party website as
well as in the WSP (US) publications'.

And
on 31 October 2003 Comrade John Thompson from Canada in his resignation
letter confirmed:

"The
SP and their baby, the WSM, [are] autocratically maintained and edited
by a small committee in the SP and allowing membership who do not
understand the socialist case I am opposed to the WSM. There
is a racial promotion in the WSM as well. That is with the recent
introduction of a Socialist Standard sized publication called the
African Socialist. Socialism is a worldwide concept and depends on
workers of the world uniting in emancipation from wage slavery. Socialists
do not promote socialism by continental congress!"

The
Clapham people speak in many voices to hide folders of facts behind
folders of fiction. And that's their unique 'conception of internal
party democracy', no doubt! But what ex-insiders have gathered from
the facts is that the WSM is the name of a small Clapham committee's
opportunistic game. Who knows who concludes what, when and under what
circumstances? And the so-called companion parties of the WSM are
in no position to question why, but to hold those fictions high! And
that's their 'sound democratic basis', maybe!"

The
Clapham party's attempt to conceal the facts was a shabby attempt
to deny workers information. That the Clapham party clearly prefers
to conceal such matters is a measure of how far the people who run
that Party and the WSM have deviated from any principle of democratic
organisation.

Ironically,
the Clapham party's belated admission that the WSP (India) had left
the WSM fold actually represents a small step forward towards something
like openness. Maybe they should be congratulated.

After
all, when did they get round to admitting to their own members and
readers of the Socialist Standard the facts about the 1991 expulsions
which led, predictably, to the establishment of the reconstituted
The SPGB?

Parliament
or Direct Action?

In
this day and age the idea of Black Rod solemnly knocking on the door
of the House of Commons so that the Queen can go in and read a speech
that has been written for her by the government is a piece of nonsense
that accords well with the rest of bourgeois tradition.

What
we see in parliament today is a mockery of democracy. The chamber
of the House of Commons rarely has 10 per cent of its 659 members
present. There are probably more MPs propping up the commons bar at
any given time than there are present in the chamber. When the Prime
Minister and the leader of the opposition are present and due to address
the House, only then is it filled to capacity.

The
spectacle is one where the front-bench leaders do most of the speaking
and the rest jeer and cheer, like a lot of unruly children. There
are jibes and counter-jibes, and cheap point-scoring is the game of
the day. Order papers are waved wildly but substance and reasoned
argument, for the most part, are sadly lacking.

The
political confusion and leadership fetishism inside parliament reflect
those same conditions existing in the world at large outside. In the
absence of a Socialist working class electorate, parliament can only
be used by reformist politicians to run capitalism.

It
must be remembered that this state of affairs exists because workers
are deluded enough to vote for it. It is utterly absurd to believe
that anything can be done about Socialism, inside or outside of parliament,
without a majority of workers understanding and wanting it.

To
regard politics and parliament as uniquely corrupt is a mistake. All
the fraud and lying, the extremes of riches and poverty, militarism
and conflict, are the normality of capitalism. It is wrong to imagine
the institutions of a system built on exploitation as capable of being
other than a reflection of the rivalry and the promotion of capitalist
class interests which characterise the system as a whole. The warped
ideology of nationalism and religion wrapped up in monetary relations
permeates the entire edifice of capitalism.

Trades Unions - Industrial Action

Trade
unions represent organised labour in factories, transport, mines and
offices, but in the UK only nine million out of 27 million workers
are in unions. The best unions can do, or have ever been able to do,
is to bargain and negotiate with the owning class about the degree
of exploitation of their members. "Sell-out" is an
oft-repeated cry, especially when governments impose wage restraint.
This exposes the weakness of industrial action when confronted by
political power. It also shows the folly of trade unions financing
the Labour Party which, when in power, always attacks organised labour.

Although
workers have to resist the downward pressure on their working conditions,
in particular on wages, this resistance should be seen in its correct
perspective. While the capitalist class (the employers) own and control
the means of production, political power in the hands of capitalist
politicians (alleged labour or avowedly capitalist) remains a threat
to the working class. It must be remembered that, overwhelmingly,
it is the votes of workers that give their class enemies power.

Against
this background Trotskyite and anarchist organisations who advocate
taking and holding the means of production must be seen as a danger
to workers seeking emancipation. All such advocates of 'direct
action' merely seek to avoid the need for majority understanding.
At bottom they have a contemptuous attitude which leaves workers dependent
upon leaders and exposed to the coercive State.

We
are asked to accept the nonsensical view that the ruling class can
close down parliament against a Socialist majority but cannot stop
a minority of workers occupying factories. The revolutionary procedure
involved in gaining a democratic consensus by voting for Socialism
is a social as well as a political act. It concerns and involves society
in its entirety, not just industry as 'workers' control' proponents
would have it.

Direct
Action For What?

Consider some other aspects of direct action. The late Alexander Berkman,
in his booklet ABC of Anarchism (Freedom Press,1942), discusses bombing
and killing as a means of removing tyrants in the name of justice.
In a chapter headed Is Anarchism Violence? he says: "Yes,
Anarchists have thrown bombs and have sometimes resorted to violence.
You will find that this applies to all men and to all times"
(p14).

After
giving examples as far back as ancient Rome, he says: "I mention
these instances to illustrate the fact that from time immemorial despots
met their fate at the hands of outraged lovers of liberty. Their acts
were cases of individual rebellion against wrong and injustice"
(p15).

What
is really of interest in these arguments is that they show anarchism
as completely lacking in any theory of history. "Men at all
times" and "time immemorial"?! It cannot
be shown that disposing of this or that despot or tyrant has rid the
world of despotism and tyranny or could do so. The fact that capitalism
creates a world ready for change and a class whose interests lie in
ending capitalism is lost on such people.

In
earlier class societies the ownership of the means of wealth production
by a minority and the exploitation of a subject class could not be
abolished. Capitalism paves the way for a classless society.

Berkman
poses the question "What must be abolished, then, to secure
liberty?" and answers: "That thing is government"
(p21). The confusion of anarchist thinking is made even clearer with
this statement:

It
follows that when government is abolished wage slavery and capitalism
must go with it, because they cannot exist without the support and
protection of government.

Governments
protect wage-slavery and capitalism with the coercive armed forces
of the State. To gloss over this and talk about simply abolishing
government is dangerous nonsense. How this coercive armed State can
be prevented from protecting capitalism without gaining control of
it is the crux of the whole matter.

This
question is answered in The SPGB's DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES, particularly
Clause 6 which declares that:

"
the working class must organise consciously and politically for the
conquest of the powers of government " so that government
machinery, including the armed forces " may be converted
from an instrument of oppression into the agent of emancipation".

The
fact is that anarchists have no theoretical foundation to prevent
them fantasising or to show them the inconsistencies in their arguments.

Berkman
asks himself the question: "But are not the Bolsheviki Communists?"
and says: "Yes, the Bolsheviki are Communists, but they want
their dictatorship, their government to compel people to live in Communism"(p24).

This
betrays total ignorance of everything they seek to discuss. The fact
that they believe that Communism can be compatible with government,
dictatorship and compulsion, shows they understand nothing. The fact
that the Bolsheviks were a conspiratorial minority, dedicated to leader-worship
and the pursuit of power, means that, apart from using the terms Socialism
and Communism and abusing Marx's teaching on the subject, they were
concerned with gaining dictatorial power - not Communism.

In
helping to perpetuate Bolshevik falsehoods, anarchists such as Berkman
have helped to misrepresent Socialism and Communism. These two words
mean the same thing and were used interchangeably by Marx and Engels.
They mean the worldwide common ownership of the means of production,
the end of class society, and of money, markets and frontiers, with
production solely for use. Communism was not historically applicable
to predominantly peasant Russia when the Bolsheviks seized power in
1917, and 'Socialism in one country' is absurdly un-Marxist.

Means
and Ends

The
first fact of working class politics is that ends and means have to
be compatible. If the starting point is with a conspiratorial minority
and a demagogue in the role of leader, with a mass following of ignorant
people willing to listen to promises and follow leaders, later when
power is attained, the relation of an elite minority with an ignorant
mass will continue. The end is determined by the means.

If
the compatibility argument is sound and in line with history, as we
claim it is, then it follows logically that parties and leaders which
adopt non-Socialist means do not have Socialism as their end or object.

The
Labour Party has long abandoned any pretence of being Socialist. It
is an openly capitalist party, running capitalism. Like the Bolsheviks,
they are an elitist party of demagogues, who depend upon an ignorant
mass believing their promises and voting them into power.

Only
a party seeking a democratic majority of workers consciously aiming
for Socialism has a valid claim to being Socialist. The SPGB is such
a party. As the modern working class is the final subject class, it
can only use political power as the means to end the power of one
class over another, finally and forever.

Violent
Minorities?

Forty
and more years ago a frequent question about parliament was: "What
would you do about a recalcitrant minority?" If we take the
question at its face value, suggesting that a determined, violent,
minority could be an obstacle to establishing Socialism, then it strengthens
the case for a Socialist majority to gain control of political power.

This
would prevent state power being used against the majority wanting
Socialism; it would ensure that a violent minority could not thwart
the majority, and it would demonstrate that Socialists chose the democratic
way, while the minority status of the recalcitrants would be exposed.
Should there be a peaceful minority opposition, every facility would
be freely available for its expression, unlike the bourgeois pretence
of democracy in relation to Socialists today.

It
should be noticed that when all the contrived and imaginative obstacles
to Socialism being established democratically through parliament are
added up they amount to the conviction that society can never change
because the ingenuity of the capitalist class and their agents won't
let it, thus conferring the mantle of eternity upon the capitalist
system. The further you move away from the quest to gain political
power, the more vague and intangible become your aspirations to change.
Capitalism is here today because the great majority of workers support
it and vote for it.

Apart
from workers withdrawing their support from this system, what answer
is there? They do the bulk of the killing and the dying. Apart from
Socialist understanding, what can unite the world's workers in rejecting
militarism, nationalism and religion?

If
political power is of no consequence to workers, it is strange how
tenaciously every ruling class on earth hangs on to it. George W Bush
has no illusions about the advantages of political power. He set himself
the target of $200m to fight for re-election. American workers, like
many workers in Britain and elsewhere, protested against the Iraq
war. But if American workers switched to voting for someone like Bill

Clinton,
who bombed Serbia as well as Iraq, and maintained genocidal sanctions
against Iraq - what would be gained? Nothing is gained by switching
from one capitalist party to another. But, when such workers turn
away from capitalism and use their votes for Socialism, society will
change.

After
nearly 30 years of indiscriminate bombing and shooting, Northernn
Ireland's Sinn Fein leaders, Adams and McGuinness, now strain every
sinew to gain political power. They would hardly have discovered a
love of the ballot box if IRA direct action was successful.

In
the early 1950s, Kenya was engaged in a bloody rebellion against British
land grabbing. The Mau Mau movement expressed the long-standing grievance
of the Kikuyu tribes people. Jomo Kenyatta, their leader, was imprisoned.
Nearly ten years later he took over as Prime Minister of independent
Kenya. State power was the key to dominance on both sides. This showed
that a mere change of rulers did not remove the extreme misery of
the people of Kenya - a lesson yet to be learned in the struggles
going on in Northern Ireland.

The
necessity for controlling the armed forces of the State is universally
understood by the ruling elite in every country on earth. The advantages
of coercive state power should not be lost on the various Trotskyite
sects. Having wasted years "boring from within" the Labour
Party, they must remember that Trotsky himself was part of Lenin's
coercive State, using the Red Army to crush rebellious sailors at
Kronstadt in 1921. The Kronstadt sailors' demands had been for:

...
democratic elections, freedom of speech and the press, and the release
of all political prisoners. The rising was mercilessly repressed by
the Red Army, under Trotsky's direction, surviving mutineers being
swiftly and ruthlessly shot.
J M Roberts THE PENGUIN HISTORY OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY, p294

The
murky, behind the scenes, manoeuvres involved in power struggles are
not always clearly reported as when, in November 2003, Shevardnadze
was deposed as President of the former Soviet republic of Georgia.
Shevardnadze had assured the Russians, who have two military bases
in the country, that he would not resign. Then 200 of his own National
Guards switched sides and, in the face of popular demands, he stood
down. America's Colin Powell, concerned about the oil and gas pipelines
under construction to transport Central Asian oil and gas into Turkey,
had done a deal with the opposition.

Conclusion

In
Marx and Engels' COMMUNIST MANIFESTO, we find this argument:

Political
power, properly so-called, is merely the organised power of one class
for oppressing another. If the proletariat during the contest with
the bourgeoisie is compelled by the force of circumstances to organise
itself as a class, if by means of a revolution, it makes itself the
ruling class and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions
of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept
away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of
classes generally. It will thereby have abolished its own supremacy
as a class.
In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class
antagonisms, we shall have an association in which the free development
of each is the condition for the free development of all.

Any
sensible reading of this passage must bring the realisation that class
struggle over the ownership of the means of production is the driving
force for change in history; that political power and control of the
State is the key to one class dominating another; and that this class
domination and oppression can finally be ended only by the working
class gaining political power to end power and classes altogether.

All
direct action arguments rely on the absurd notion that the working
class can somehow outgun the capitalist class's armed forces. The SPGB has always argued that direct action, confronting the coercive
power of the state, would be a suicidal strategy. The capitalist class
has invariably resorted to state force against workers, even against
those with very limited industrial aims: for instance, the Fire Brigades
Union, the 1984 NUM strike, the dock strike in the late 1940's; the
General Strike in 1926, etc. Even more so when they feel their class
position is threatened, e.g. the Paris Commune.

Class
ownership of the means of production and the capitalists' consequent
ability to exploit the working class - "those who produce
but do not possess" - is sustained and protected by the coercive
apparatus of the state. That means that, if we are to end this state
of affairs, it is essential to defeat them on the field of political
struggle.

Replies
To Correspondents

Like
most writers and editors, we try to ensure that what we publish is
reliable, at least regarding factual accuracy. However, two subscribers
have written to us in protest, making very different points, and both
questioning this passage about The SPGB's formation in 1904:

At
the time, this party was unique: there had never been one like it
before. Unlike all the other working class parties of the time,
this was to be a Party with only one objective: working for Socialism
and only for Socialism. The German Social Democrat Party, the French
Parti Ouvrier, the SDF, the ILP, the Labour Representation Committee
(later the Labour Party), the Socialist Labour Party (in Scotland
and the USA) - all of these relied on a raft of reformist "immediate
demands", a shopping list of 'palliatives', to attract mass
support. Such parties still do. The SPGB, No.50, p2

J
Plant wrote, with a touch of sarcasm, challenging us to produce:

...the
"raft" of "immediate demands", together with the
"shopping list" of "palliatives" of the current
Socialist Labor Party of America. A "raft" and "shopping
list" must, by definition, together comprise a considerable number
of items, but perhaps you could prune the list somewhat to only the
principal ones, which may enable you to just squeeze them onto one
sheet of A4 paper? I am sure that you have plenty to do, but if you
find the time, and if your budget would permit the use of an extra
sheet or two of A4 paper, maybe you could, apart from the current
list of immediate demands and palliatives, also list a few others
of the Socialist Labor Party of America over the period, say, of the
last 100 years?

It
will not surprise him that we decline to waste space listing the particular
palliatives advocated by the Socialist Labour Party in Britain or
the American SLP. The passage quoted above was dealing with the historical
circumstances in which The SPGB was formed,
and the existence then of reformist political organisations which
claimed to be Socialist whilst advocating reforms of capitalism. It
is undeniable that such parties still do put forward lists of "immediate
demands", reforms offered to make life under capitalism a
bit less intolerable, and to attract support.

Was
it true for us to state that in 1904 the Socialist Labour Party had
a programme of "immediate demands" or "palliatives"?

That
party's programme was well-known to the founder-members of The SPGB.
Later, under De Leon's guidance, the SLP adopted industrial unionism
as the central plank of its platform but initially it had a different
programme. In the 1911 preface to our 1905 MANIFESTO, The SPGB asserted:

The
Socialist Labour Party was formed in Scotland by seceding members
of the SDF (now SDP). Its founders did not comprehend the real significance
of the revolutionary struggle, for they adopted a list of "immediate
demands" (THE SOCIALIST, July 1903), for palliating the evils
of capitalism, thus leading the workers to believe that their interests
could be served by patching up the present system instead of devoting
their energies to its overthrow.
The formation of a real Socialist Party (The SPGB) and the publication
of its official organ, the SOCIALIST STANDARD, eventually convinced
them of the unsoundness of their position in this respect, and their
"immediate demands" were abandoned (THE SOCIALIST, June
and November 1905).

If
there were no 1903 programme of "immediate demands",
how come these were later, in 1905, "abandoned"?
That preface appeared in several editions of the MANIFESTO of The SPGB, including the 6th edition (1920).
Mr Plant should note these points from the 1920 preface:

The
Socialist Labour Party also found themselves carried away by the
flood of confusion [i.e. re the war]. One of the contributors to
their party organ, THE SOCIALIST, wrote (December 1914):-

The
SLP - let us admit it freely - has been taken by storm, though not
so disastrously as other parties. What policy does the SLP follow
with respect to this war? We don't know. We are disunited. We are
groping for a lead at the present time.

The
Editor of the same journal wrote in the issue of November 1914,
three months after the war broke out:-I cannot say what the official
attitude of the Party is.

Probably the fact that they could not decide their attitude accounts
for their action in 1918 when the Executive Committees of the Socialist
Labour Party, the Independent Labour Party, and the British Socialist
Party [i.e. the former SDF/SDP] jointly issued a manifesto on the
eve of the General Election.

Perhaps this sort of contemporary evidence is not enough for Mr Plant,
who is clearly sceptical about our honesty. But there is another sort
of evidence, of "the dog that didn't bark" variety. When
a statement is made which is untrue, an organisation's spokesmen and
members should try to correct it. If such a statement is not challenged,
it is not unreasonable for us to conclude that the statement in question
was in fact true and undeniable.

In
a formal debate against the SLP, The SPGB spokesman, in his opening
speech, stated that the SLP had a programme of "immediate
demands" or "palliatives". If that was untrue,
you would expect the SLP speaker in his reply to say so. But, in that
debate between The SPGB and the SLP, when this statement was made
by The SPGB spokesman, it was not disputed by the SLP speaker (see
SOCIALIST STANDARD, April 1907).

The SPGB's statement about the SLP, subtitled A Statement of Differences
(SOCIALIST STANDARD, August 1906), asserted that:

The
constitution of the SLP, then, and for some time after, had a 'palliative'
or 'reform' programme as part, while The Socialist Party's constitution
ignored such confusionist items.

An
SLP member's letter of protest was published (October 1906). But his
protest said nothing about that particular charge being inaccurate.
It seems that all concerned accepted the undeniable truth of The SPGB's
assertions that the SLP, prior to adopting industrial unionism, had
indeed a programme of "immediate demands".

As
for the American Socialist Labor Party, led in its glory days by Daniel
De Leon, it is a fact that their continued attendance at the Congresses
of the International were subject to conditions which meant that they
had to sit as part of the American delegation dominated by the, thoroughly
reformist, Socialist Party of America.

Faced
with a similar situation, The SPGB tried to get the International
Socialist Bureau, of which Daniel De Leon was a member, to admit only
genuinely Socialist parties as members of the International. Failing
to achieve this, The SPGB decided to withdraw from this organisation,
dominated as it was by reformist and non-Socialist parties.

De
Leon however continued to attend its Congresses, even though required
to sit alongside delegates from the - reformist - Socialist Party
of America. An early 'Unity' conference was held, initiated by the
SPA (Dec.1905-March 1906). Another 'Unity' conference was proposed
by the SLP (NEC Resolution, Jan. 1908) but rejected by the SPA. Yet
another 'Unity' conference (New York, Jan 6-7, 1917) failed only due
to the SLP's insistence on industrial unionism: significantly the
two parties had no trouble reaching agreement on their "aim
and reform policies" (SOCIALIST STANDARD, March 1917).

The
SLP had long since signalled its willingness to relegate Socialism
to a secondary status as merely their "ultimate goal".
Their Address to the European movement argued that the parties
of the Second International "its brother-parties of the various
countries ... the European comrades ... have become so enmeshed in
bourgeois politics that they have apparently lost sight of .. the
ultimate goal of the Socialist movement" (quoted in the SOCIALIST
STANDARD, September 1915). The phrase "ultimate goal"
clearly implies that there were also "immediate demands".

Later,
the SLP succumbed to utter confusion in its assessment of the Soviet
Union ("where capitalism has been done away with"),
and the belief that Socialism - a "Socialist Republic"
- could take place in just one country:

"Can
the other nations be expected to agree to fraternal and cooperative
relations (in the event of A Socialist America)?". Eventually,
yes! ... What if they don't? Would this country stand exposed to aggression?
Not in the least.
A Socialist America could, if it had to, defend itself with unmatchable
material strength and moral unity.
SLP election leaflet, 1969, quoted in THE WESTERN SOCIALIST, 1969
no. 6.

As
for the positions of latter-day American industrial unionists and
a variety of De Leonist splinter-groups, it is clear that for some,
as that 1969 article showed, lists of social reforms were not at all
ruled out. In short, on either side of the Atlantic, the SLP was hopelessly
compromised with reformism. Like the other parties of the Second International,
the SLP shilly-shallied about the 1914-19 war; and like almost all
'Socialist' parties with this background became confused about the
Soviet Union. Such parties did a lot to hold back the movement for
Socialism.

Another
correspondent, Peter E Newell, wrote to us:

Whilst
it is true, and to its credit, that The SPGB was formed with the
sole object of socialism, and that it consistently opposed the First
World War, it was not unique in 1904, nor was it the only political
party in the world to consistently stand against that war.

Early in 1902 (it may have been late in 1901) a party was formed
in British Columbia named the Revolutionary Socialist Party of Canada.
In December 1902, it contested a by-election in North Nanaimo, Vancouver
Island ... Its sole 'platform' was the abolition of capitalism and
the wages system - and no immediate demands, reforms or palliatives
Its foundation members included James Pritchard, who before emigrating
to Canada had worked in the Ermen and Engels Textile Mill, and had
been a member of the Social Democratic Federation in Salford. It
is generally accepted in Canada that the Revolutionary Socialist
Party was the world's first anti-reformist, 'impossibilist' party.
In September 1903, the Socialist Party of British Columbia, founded
in 1901, adopted the RSPC's revolutionary Platform, as did the Socialist
Party of Canada, founded at the beginning of 1905.

On the day that the First World War began, August 6 1914, the Dominion
Executive Committee of the Socialist Party of Canada issued its
Manifesto to the Workers of Canada, in which it stated its opposition
to capitalism and the war, and called on the workers of the world
to unite as they have nothing to lose but their chains - but a world
to win. Two weeks later, The SPGB issued a similar statement. Both
parties consistently opposed the war from beginning to end .. These
are the facts

The
SPC's PLATFORM, published in its journal, THE WESTERN CLARION, until
the SPC's collapse (1925), like The SPGB's DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES,
emphasised the class struggle:

the
irrepressible conflict of interest between the capitalist and the
worker necessarily expresses itself as a struggle for political supremacy.

The
SPC's aim was:-

1.
The transformation, as rapidly as possible, of capitalist property
in the means of wealth production (natural resources, factories,
mills, railroads, etc.) into collective means of production.
2. The organisation and management of industry by the working class.
3. The establishment, as speedily as possible, of production for
use instead of production for profit.

The
PLATFORM of the SPC stated that:

The
present economic system is based upon capitalist ownership of the
means of production, consequently, all the products of labor belong
to the capitalist class. The capitalist is therefore master; the worker
a slave ... The interest of the working class lies in setting itself
free from capitalist exploitation by the abolition of the wage system,
under which this exploitation, at the point of production, is cloaked.
To accomplish this necessitates the transformation of capitalist property
in the means of wealth production into socially controlled economic
forces.

The
SPC argued for political action with a clear statement of the role
of the state:

So
long as the capitalist class remains in possession of the reins of
government all the powers of the State will be used to protect and
defend its property rights in the means of wealth production and its
control of the product of labor.

At
its 1903 convention, an uncompromising resolution was carried unanimously:

Resolved
that this convention places itself on record as absolutely opposed
to the introduction of palliatives or immediate demands in propaganda
work, as being liable to retard the achievement of our final aims,
and that the Socialist Party of British Columbia henceforth stands
firmly upon the one issue of the abolition of the present system of
wage slavery as the basis for all political organisation (WESTERN
CLARION, 11 Sept. 1903).

When
23 candidates stood (1903), their Election Platform was short and
to the point: THE ABOLITION OF THE WAGES SYSTEM AND OPPOSITION TO
ALL PALLIATIVES. By 1911, the Vancouver Local had over 100 members
and held weekly classes, on economics, history and philosophy, also
a Speaker's Class (letter from Bill Pritchard who joined the SPC in
1911, WESTERN SOCIALIST, December 1968).

When
the First World War broke out, the SPC's Dominion Executive Committee
met (August 6th 1914) and agreed on this MANIFESTO TO THE WORKERS
OF CANADA:

In
view of the European situation, and the efforts of the capitalist
press and politicians to stir up a war fever in Canada, to the end
that Canadian working men will be induced to take up arms in defence
of the interests of their masters, the Socialist Party of Canada,
instead of passing futile resolutions of protest, would call your
attention to the following facts:

1. Inasmuch as all modern wars have their origin in the disputes
of the international capitalist class for markets in which to dispose
of the stolen products of labor, or to protect themselves in the
possession of markets they already have, the motive of the anticipated
struggle in Europe is of no real interest to the international working
class.

2. Further, as the struggle, if materialized, will claim as its
victims countless thousands of the members of our class in a quarrel
that is not theirs, it behoves the workers not to be carried away
by the frenzied clamorings of the blare of martial music. In no
conceivable manner, shape or form could the interests of the workers
of any of the nationalities involved be furthered or protected by
their participation in the conflict.

3. Since the international working class produces all the wealth
of the world, and still possesses nothing, receiving in the shape
of wages but sufficient to maintain a slavish existence, and since
the international capitalist class occupies the position of a social
parasite, producing nothing and possessing everything, which position
it is able to maintain by virtue of its control of the powers of
State - the only struggle that can be of vital interest to the working
class of all nations, is that which has for its object the wresting
of this power from the hands of the master class, and using it to
remove all forms of exploitation and servitude.

To this struggle the Socialist Party of Canada calls you. The only
barrier standing in our way is ignorance in the ranks of our own
class. As an International Working class we have but one enemy -
the International Capitalist Class.
WORKERS OF THE WORLD, UNITE! YOU HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE BUT YOUR CHAINS!
[Source: Jim Milne's HISTORY OF THE SOCIALIST PARTY OF CANADA]

That
workers the other side of the world experiencing the same exploitation
should arrive at similar conclusions is an impressive vindication
of Marxism. We are happy to put the record straight.

War
and the Workers

What the workers suffer from everywhere is capitalism. Their interest
requires that they should concentrate on achieving Socialism.
War is not a means to that end. It solves no problem of the working
class ... They have no concern with capitalist trade and foreign
investment. They have no interest at stake which justifies giving
support to war.
The SPGB, WAR AND THE WORKING CLASS (1936),p16-17

Workers
For Sale

Children
are taught about slavery at school. They are told about how the Romans
had slaves and how, centuries ago, African slaves were bought from
Arab slave-traders and African kings. Children are told how men and
women were transported across the Atlantic as slaves for the sugar
and cotton plantations.

Many
people believe slavery ended in Britain in 1807. In fact a peculiar
kind of slavery was already in a process of becoming universal: wage
slavery. The historical context which led to wage slavery is not taught
in schools. A teacher who told the truth to schoolchildren about the
genesis of capitalism would be hounded out as a "subversive"
or "Marxist revolutionary". In universities economics
lecturers go out of their way to deny the existence of wage slavery
and class exploitation. Politicians spread the lie that the capitalist
class, not the working class, are the "wealth creators".

You
will not see wage slavery referred to in the UN Universal Declaration
of Human Rights. The authors of this document saw no problem with
the buying and selling of labour power. They thought it quite natural
that workers sold their mental and physical ability to work for a
wage and a salary. They did not think the labour market was a site
of class power and coercion. Which it is. Workers are forced into
the labour market. They are coerced into the wages system. And in
the wages system they are systematically exploited as a class no matter
what job they do.

In
the early 1800's men and women were being driven off the land, very
much as they are today in developing capitalist countries. Between
1795 and 1812 British governments passed more than 1500 Enclosure
Acts in favour of the landowners. The peasants were made propertyless.
They were forced onto the labour market as wage labour or face starvation.
Women and children of the working class were broken in the mills and
mines of what is called the Industrial Revolution. Wage slavery is
a form of class exploitation, just as are serfdom, chattel slavery
and debt bondage.

Marx
wrote about the birth of capitalism, and told the truth. Of the genesis
of capitalism, he wrote in CAPITAL (Vol. 1, Ch XXXII):

"To
establish the eternal laws of Nature of the capitalist
mode of production {meant} to transform, at one pole, the social means
of production and subsistence into capital, and at the opposite pole,
the mass of the population into wage-labourers, into free labouring
poor If money, according to Augier, comes into the
world with congenital blood-stain on one cheek, capital comes
dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt".

The
UN Charter said that no one should be a slave. But today billions
of workers are wage slaves. The working class, no matter whether their
wages are high or low, their working conditions good or bad, whether
they are in trade unions or not, are an exploited class producing
more social wealth than they receive in wages and salaries. The capitalist
class do not produce any social wealth. Social wealth is produced
by the working class. Under capitalism, the workers only receive back
a fraction of what they produce. The capitalist class live off the
exploitation of wage slavery through the unearned income of rent,
interest and profit.

Of
course slavery, in the sense of receiving no wage or salary for work,
did not die out. Slavery existed and still exists throughout the world,
for instance as 'debt-bondage'. For instance, with the increasing
movement of capital and labour throughout the world, men, women and
children have ended up as chattel slaves within Britain with children
being sent to 'relatives', and through illegal immigration.
Yet compared to wage slavery this is marginal. Wage slavery is the
dominant form of exploitation throughout the world. Yet you do not
read of wage slavery in the index of economic text books.

According
to Anti-Slavery International, "hundreds of women and children
are trafficked into Britain a year - a conservative estimate based
on reported cases" (U MAGAZINE, 2004, p17). However millions
of workers exist in wage slavery. Yet Anti-Slavery International denies
that the wages system is wage slavery. They are only interested in
low wages and poor working conditions, not the existence of the wages
system and the labour market. Like all reform groups they do not want
to challenge capitalism. They do not want to criticise class power
and class exploitation. They are relaxed about the means of production
being owned and controlled by a small parasitic minority.

Yes,
some capitalists in Britain have domestic slaves. Some people have
to work in "debt bondage", but the issue for the
working class remains capitalism, not the effects of capitalism. Anti-Slavery
International would be quite happy to see all workers in waged employment
as long as it was "fair". As social reformers they
have no time for Socialism. They campaign for legislation and changes
in policy in the absurd belief that the state is neutral. But the
state is not neutral - it is a coercive power. Socialists want to
get rid of the wages system and find reform organisations like the
ASI are simply barriers to understanding capitalism and organising
politically for its abolition.

As
for the trade unions: they too accept the wages system. They do not
challenge the existence of labour markets, the buying and selling
of labour power, and the class ownership of the means of production.
For all their huffing and puffing the trade unions are satisfied with
the conservative motto of "a fair day's work for a fair day's
pay" for their members. They do not accept that their own
members exist in a state of wage slavery. They have absorbed the vulgar
and apologetic economics which Marx showed did little more than shore
up the interests of the capitalist class.

So
it comes as no surprise to see that unions like UNISON have jumped
up on the anti-slavery bandwagon. UNISON is affiliated to Anti-Slavery
International, and encourages its members to support social reformers
such as the Stop Human Traffic campaign. What it does not do is urge
its membership to read Marx and understand class exploitation. It
does not ask workers to see beyond the pay packet. Yet it follows
every trendy reform. It uses its 'political fund' for supporting reforms.
The one thing it keeps absolutely silent about is wage slavery.

Marx
urged workers to forget about wanting capitalism to be fair. Capitalism
can only ever exploit. It can only ever be ugly, nasty and unpleasant.
Instead of wasting time, campaigning against every conceivable problem
thrown up by capitalism, the working class should take conscious and
political action to abolish capitalism itself. That is where their
collective political strength lies. As Socialists. And this means
abolishing wage slavery the world over. It means abolishing the wages
system. It means abolishing capitalism. As Clause 4 of The SPGB's
DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES states: "That as in the order of
social evolution the working class is the last class to achieve its
freedom the emancipation of the working class will involve the emancipation
of all mankind without distinction of race or sex".

Wage
Slavery
I
would banish the word wages from the language, and consign it,
with the word slavery, to histories and dictionaries. Wages
is a term of purchase; it means the piecemeal purchase of your
blood, and bones, and brains, at weekly payments; it is the
present name for the Saturday's market price of man, woman and
child!Wages by "Senex", from THE PIONEER,
14 June 1834, quoted in
A RADICAL READER: THE STRUGGLE FOR CHANGE IN ENGLAND, 1381-1914,
ed. C. Hampton, p 460

A
Letter From China

Hi
In China, this year it is the year of Monkey. The year I was born
was the year of Monkey, too. I hope you have a good year and happy
the Spring Festival! First, I am sorry. In fact, I want to say Socialism
can not be achieved in one country, however big and however advanced.
It is my clerical mistake. Sorry! I believe man is not born selfish,
at first. But, sometimes, the man that born in a kind-hearted family
may become a criminal. How to explain that? As for the reform of China,
do not you think that Chinese government is using Marxism according
to the actual conditions? China has many reality difficulties. The
capitalism prevails in the world, now. Do you think China will be
a socialist country, if China implements the multi-party system? Of
course, communism society is still my ideal. We all do my best for
it, now. Well, do you support for implementing socialism regime by
violent revolution?
Yours, YP

Dear
YP
Thank you for e-mailing us, we return your greeting and hope the year
of the Monkey is a happy year for you.

We
confirm your point that Socialism cannot be achieved in only one country.
Capitalism is worldwide and the social problems it generates - poverty,
militarism, unemployment, national rivalries and wars - clearly do
not lend themselves to being removed from one area to the exclusion
of the rest. As the working class comes to understand the need for
Socialism, they will co-operate on a world scale. National states
and frontiers will be obsolete with the establishment of Socialism.When
Socialism is established the concept of 'countries' will disappear.

Your
second point about a man not being born selfish, but becoming a criminal
later, contains the seeds of its own answer. The process of social
conditioning plays the major part in what we may become. Kind-heartedness
does not always flourish in a world of competition and private-property
relationships. Most crimes are in those categories concerned with
'illegally' taking property of one kind or another that belongs
to someone else. Social behaviour reflects the society in which we
live with its haves and have-nots, rich and poor, employers and employees.
In a world where
money and wealth are concentrated in the hands of a minority class,
the wealth producers are surrounded by expensive things that they
and their class produce but cannot afford.

It
would be useful here to define some of the terms you use in order
to see more clearly the conditions you are aware of, both in China
and elsewhere.

Marxism
analyses capitalism - the system of commodity production where the
means of production (factories, land, railways etc) are owned by one
class to the exclusion of the majority who as employees depend
upon wages in order to live.

Marxism
seeks to end this system through a majority class-consciousness revolution
and to establish Socialism/Communism.

Socialism
and Communism mean the same. Marx and Engels used the terms
interchangeably. Engels explained, in the 1888 Preface to the Communist
Manifesto, that they had used the name Communist, because Socialism
had been misrepresented in popular use in the Europe and England of
1847. Not too unlike today!

Both
terms mean the worldwide common ownership of the industrial and material
resources of the earth. A classless society with no money, markets
or wages-system where the requirements for a full and happy life will
be abundantly produced and freely available according to need.

As
to conditions in China it will be seen from the above that the Chinese
ruling clique are not using Marxism at all, except as a distorted
propaganda ploy to distract attention away from the capitalist system
they are operating. This, the Soviet Bolsheviks did before them. Multi-party
systems exist throughout most of the capitalist world. In one-party
systems like that of China, dissenting voices and rival capitalist
interests operate and find expression inside the one legal party.

It
is Socialist understanding that will determine the decisive
movement for Socialism. Multi-party capitalism solves no working class
problems. Only one genuine Socialist party is needed in any political
area or country. China will become a Socialist society only when,
in common with fellow workers worldwide, the great majority of Chinese
workers understand, want and organise for this

It
will be achieved by the working class themselves. It will not be handed
down to them by vanguardist leaders.

Finally, the question of violent revolution

Because
there can be no Socialism unless the vast majority want it, Socialism
will be brought about by the self-emancipation of the working class.
It can only be democratic, because a society of socially equal men
and women could function in no other way. Any violence therefore would
be incidental and not initiated by Socialists. As class struggles
are always necessarily political, gaining control of the State apparatus
by the vote is the necessary precondition to stripping the capitalist
class of their ownership of society's means of living. With political
power in the hands of workers, the capitalists will have no coercive
force and would lose any violent challenge against the democratic
majority.

It
must be firmly borne in mind that the object of workers (through their
own Socialist Party) gaining political power is to make the means
of production communal and to end thereby the existence of all classes,
including the working class, and once and for all to end the power
of one class over another.

Lights
Go Out In The UkraineSocialist
Enlightenment from the Ukraine contacted our Party through
the web, claiming to have broken away from an organisation linked
to the so-called World Socialist Movement, principally made
up of members of the Clapham-based Socialist Party.
After
several e-mails and letters to Socialist Enlightenment we have
received no reply to our questions over the legitimacy of their
organisation, their acceptance of the Object and Declaration
of Principles of The SPGB, and the
'scam' which has been uncovered in Kiev whereby numerous political
organisations were hoodwinked into believing that they had found
like-minded supporters in the Ukraine.
The
continued silence from Socialist Enlightenment leads us to conclude
that they, too, were part of this deception, either engaged
in for political or financial reasons. This is obviously a disappointment
but it was not the first time and nor will it be the last that
anti-Socialists have tried to infiltrate the party.

The
Iraq War - From Bad To Worse

The
occupation of Iraq has brought the predictable opposition of the unfortunate
people of that country, and the brutal, systematic torture, sexual
abuse, and humiliation of captives by the occupying forces. This,
while the US and British politicians boast of the heroics of these
fine, brave boys (and girls), and declare that they are sure that
all is being done in compliance with international laws such as the
Geneva Convention. Just as it was at Guantanomo Bay, and at Baghram
air-base in Afghanistan. Even with photographs which, to at least
one shocked American Senator, suggested images likely to appear on
a pornographic S and M website (how would he know?), the great and
the good mostly declare this was, and is, a 'just war'.

In 1997, the year Blair's New Labour government took the place of
the Tories in running British capitalism, the latest edition of THE
STATE OF WAR AND PEACE ATLAS was published. In just five years, from
1990 to 1995, there were worldwide about 5.5 million war deaths of
whom three quarters were civilians, including approximately a million
children. The number of refugees doubled from 1980 to 1995, from 22m
in 1980 to about 40m (1990-95). Some regions and countries have experienced
wars more than others: e.g.Yugoslavia's so-called 'ethnic cleansing',
Chechnya, Afghanistan, Israel-Palestine and endless horrendous wars/
civil wars in most of Africa, to name but a few of the main arenas.
The latest phase of war mongering in South East Asia at that time
was over control of natural resources:

Parties divide on ethnic or religious lines and fight for forests,
gold and copper ... Beneath the sea lie untapped oil reserves. Oil
persuades the Australian government to turn a blind eye to Indonesia's
otherwise widely condemned occupation of East Timor. Oil lends a modern
urgency to China's claim that the whole of the South China Sea is
part of its 'Sacred Territory'. And oil helps to explain why every
other state in the region contests the Chinese claim.
THE STATE OF WAR AND PEACE ATLAS,1997, p61

For the record here are some extracts from one of our pamphlets, showing
something of what Socialists have said in the past concerning the
Labour Party and wars:

The Labour Party supported the first and second world wars, on
both occasions entering war-time coalition governments and supporting
conscription. Between the wars the Labour party, playing on the war-weariness
of the working class, was able to build up for itself the reputation
of being the party of peace and disarmament, as against the 'war-mongering'
Tories ...

This myth of the Labour party as the party of peace still survives
to a certain extent and attracts pacifists and nuclear disarmers.
Today, however, the Labour party is as patriotic and militaristic
as the Conservative party. When in office after the war it continued
war-time conscription, began the manufacture of British atomic weapons,
joined NATO and started a costly rearmament programme. It sent troops
to fight in Malaya and Korea, and the Wilson government 1964-70 gave
general support to America in the Vietnam War.
The SPGB pamphlet, THE SOCIALIST PARTY AND WAR,1970, p64

Another passage seems particularly relevant now with reports and photos
of nauseating and systematic abuse - or was it torture? - of Iraqi
'detainees' at the hands of the Western military and intelligence
people:

War cannot solve working class problems. It cuts across the basic
identity of interest of the workers of the world, setting sections
of them at enmity with each other in the interests of the capitalist
class. It elevates violence into the position of arbiter in place
of the common desire for mutual peace and happiness. Its effect is
wholly evil. It depraves all the participants by forcing them to concentrate
on the best methods of producing misery and of killing each other.
It elevates, lying, cheating, disabling and murdering opponents into
virtues, confers honours on those who practise these means most successfully.
Young men and women in their most impressionable years have the vile
methods of warfare imposed on them and are filled with the idea that
violence and not understanding is the final solution in all problems.
Socialism is completely opposed to war and what it represents. The
Socialist Party ...is opposed to war not on some abstract religious
or moral grounds but because it conflicts with the interests of the
working class. Wars are fought to protect and further the interests
of rival capitalist groups. In these orgies of death and destruction
which capitalism periodically and inevitably produces, workers suffer
and die not for their own interests but for those of their masters.
(Ibid. p70-71).

As we pointed out in our pamphlet WAR AND CAPITALISM, the reasons
governments give for going to war bear little resemblance to the real
reasons. Whatever the reasons for wars, these have nothing to do with
the interests of the working class.

Whose oil wells? Whose profits? Not ours!

The turf wars of the capitalist class are not our concern, any more
than it matters to us which of the top supermarket chains ends up
with the lion's share of the market. The capitalist system is based
on competition, which from time to time is taken to extremes, becoming
violent. But capitalism's wars are never fought in the interests of
the working class. Fact.

Object and Declaration of Principles

Object

The
establishment of a system of society based upon the common ownership
and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing
and distributing wealth by and in the interest of the whole community.

Declaration
of Principles

THE SOCIALIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN HOLDS:

1. That society
as at present constituted is based upon the ownership of the
means of living (ie land, factories, railways, etc.) by the
capitalist or master class, and the consequent enslavement of
the working class, by whose labour alone wealth is produced.

2. That
in society, therefore, there is an antagonism of interests, manifesting
itself as a class struggle, between those who possess but do not
produce and those who produce but do not possess.

3.That
this antagonism can be abolished only by the emancipation of the
working class from the domination of the master class, by the
conversion into common property of society of the means of production
and distribution, and their democratic control by the whole people.

4. That
as in the order of social evolution the working class is the last
class to achieve its freedom, the emancipation of the working
class will involve the emancipation of all mankind without distinction
of race or sex.

5. That
this emancipation must be the work of the working class itself.

6. That
as the machinery of government, including the armed forces of
the nation, exists only to conserve the monopoly by the capitalist
class of the wealth taken from the workers, the working class
must organise consciously and politically for the conquest of
the powers of government, national and local, in order that this
machinery, including these forces, may be converted from an instrument
of oppression into the agent of emancipation and the overthrow
of privilege, aristocratic and plutocratic.

7. That
as all political parties are but the expression of class interests,
and as the interest of the working class is diametrically opposed
to the interests of all sections of the master class, the party
seeking working class emancipation must be hostile to every other
party.

8. The Socialist Party of Great Britain, therefore, enters the field
of political action determined to wage war against all other political
parties, whether alleged labour or avowedly capitalist, and calls
upon the members of the working class of this country to muster
under its banner to the end that a speedy termination may be wrought
to the system which deprives them of the fruits of their labour,
and that poverty may give place to comfort, privilege to equality,
and slavery to freedom.